Checking their Pulse: Consequences of Comparative Grading

John and I jogged around the track at Conard High School, dew tipping the long blades of grass that covered the football field.  We moved at an easy pace, talking about the game we would play later that day on the same field.  Lacrosse season was at its peak intensity, and we weren’t going to waste energy on the mile run we were completing in gym class.  

Even at our pace, we would finish under 10 minutes, and we chugged slowly by some of our less-athletic classmates, breathing heavily, or slowing their feet to a walk, beads of sweat dripping down their faces, like more blades of swaying grass.

I crossed the finish line as my gym teacher began walking towards me.  He was a small guy, more of a coach than an athlete, so it took me completely off guard when he reached for my throat.

I knocked his hand away out of instinct.

“Relax, Daly,” he said, “I’m just checking your pulse.”

He placed his index and middle fingers against my Carotid artery, and started counting while he looked at his watch.

“I thought so,” he exclaimed in disgust, moving his fingers away from my neck. “You’re an athlete, you’re supposed to be an example! And you’re not even trying!”

I turned back to the track, noticing the substantial number of my classmates that were still running.

“Are you kidding me?” I asked, pretty annoyed. “I finished before almost everyone! We have a game today, I’m not spending all my energy here!”

He shook his head, looking down at the track. “I understand that you guys have a game today, but this class isn’t about how you do against others, it’s about how you do against yourself.”

***

I used to tell that story for a different reason.  Usually it was to ridicule the teacher, and explain how crazy he was for grabbing my neck.  He was a bit of a clown, and it was easy to dismiss his opinions because I was young, and headstrong.

Now, however, I see the wisdom in the lesson.

Imagine the same scenario inside a non-physical education setting. Students are given a standard task, such as writing a 5-paragraph essay. A group of students that are already writing at grade-level toil appropriately at the task.  The students that are above grade-level are capable of breezing through the assignment, and the students that struggle are forced to work much harder to complete the task, if at all.

Now think about the way these students will be graded.  In general, the higher level students will receive the higher grades, and the lower level students will be assigned the lower grades.

We typically rationalize this behavior for one of two reasons.

1. Fairness
2. Getting them ready for “The Real World”

Let’s approach these rationales, and explore why they represent gross fallacies that may actually border on student oppression.

Fairness

Often, when dealing with less progressive teachers, the subject of grades and fairness arises. At the middle and secondary level in most American schools, the A through F approach is still both a requirement and reality.

In theory, there is nothing wrong with this.

It is perfectly acceptable to assess a student’s work, and assign a number or letter to that work.

The problem arises in the way we are assessing, and the role that Personalization and Individualization, along with proficiency and growth, play in reaching that letter or number grade.

Dweck’s work on Mindset plays a key role here, as the importance of factoring a student’s effort into their grade, and how that effort is perceived by the rest of the class, is integral to developing grit and perseverance in our students.  To put it plainly, our grading and assessment systems need to promote the idea that EFFORT EQUALS ACHIEVEMENT. Anything that gets in the way of this is short term or arbitrary at best.

In order to be truly fair, we need to individualize student work, using standard acquisition and effort as the formula for grading.

The Real World

This fallacy is tied to the previous section as well.

We are often in positions as teachers where we are receiving pressure from some other entity above us, bemoaning the lack of student readiness.  In the public school system, this is always true, as the influence and anxiety that the college acceptance process creates looms large over all decisions in a trickle-down manner.

Proponents of this type of thinking see college as a hard deadline, one where their students must be up to proficiency at the end of the 12th grade.

This assertion is sloppy, lazy, and used to create excuses against innovation.

The real world exists, but we cannot use a child’s experience as a student in our system to pretend that what happens prior to their eventual high school and college graduation is a preamble to some “Real” life that exists.

I have been working now for around 20 years.  What makes me a good employee, and an effective worker, have been my ability to be resilient, to understand how important a work ethic is, to see myself as a learner, to know how to ask questions, to cultivate healthy relationships and communication with my colleagues, to be empathetic towards my students or customers, to care about what I do, and to show up day in and day out.

None of those skills are related to my ability to determine the points on a parabola, or name the capitals of 50 states.  The grades I received through my education, and the tasks i was required to complete were rarely things I have used in my adult life.

Imagine now that you are entering high school reading below grade-level.  You desperately want to improve, but none of the classes are built to specifically address your literacy deficiencies.  You are asked to read Shakespeare, or Salinger, Steinbeck if you are lucky. You are going to learn one thing very quickly: that you are unable to do. That you are stupid. That hard work is a waste of time.

Imagine instead that we reward resilience, learning as a process, grit, hard work, pushing yourself. These qualities couldn’t be more needed in a workforce and economy.  

We do need to get students ready for the “Real World”, but I would argue that comparative grading is getting in the way of that.

***

Moving away from static ways of assessment, and comparative grading, is the only way to ensure that all of our students are being treated fairly.  This can be accomplished through the adoption of grading platforms and structures that take into account growth, standard acquisition, and effort.  In order for this to occur however, we must move toward a policy of personalization and individualization of curriculum as well.

These days, I don’t run as much as I should. With my two children (with one on the way), work requirements, tutoring sessions, coaching, and the never-ending joys of homeownership, exercise has too often taken a back seat.

When I do get out for a run or walk, I find myself putting my two fingers to my neck, making sure that I am pushing myself, measuring whether I’m making the most out of the time that I have. 

Are we doing this for our students? 

Can we do better?

The Complexities of Simplicity: The Importance of Common Core Aligned Curriculum Planning and Implementation

Comic by Scott Adams

It stands to reason that the simplest explanation for some unknown phenomena is probably the best explanation.  This concept, known as Occam’s Razor, has been used to eschew excesses from theories, and was even used as an explanation for the existence of God. This reliance on simplicity however, can sometimes be lost on the true application of the idea:

“Occam's razor is often wrongly applied. The key is the the phrase "praeter necessitatem" in the Latin formula. Not all complications are forbidden. On the contrary, complications necessary to cover the facts are not only allowed but required. However simple or even beautiful a theory may be, if it does not cover the facts, it is not viable. A complex theory may be a sign that the thing it is trying to explain is not yet deeply understood. But it may also be the correct explanation of a genuinely complex phenomenon” (The Principle of Simplicity).

While it is tempting to view the planning of curriculum as a simple, step-by-step process, it is important to not lose focus on the fact that proper curriculum planning is an incredibly important, and incredibly complicated task. The design and implementation of curriculum is a highly difficult and nuanced process that requires an understanding of student learning styles, proper implementation and review, and an evaluation system that tracks efficacy. While the introduction of the Common Core State Standards may seem to be a panacea in the process, thorough work must still be done at both the educational and administrative levels for it to be implemented properly.

The topic of learning styles, and the many different approaches that have been taken over the years, have given educators a wealth (perhaps and overabundance) of psychological and philosophical approaches to instruction.  This makes the planning stages of the curriculum especially difficult when we take a standards-based approach.The educators and supervisors involved in the decision making process must take into account the idea that not all students learn in the same manner, and therefore, the curriculum must reflect both this understanding, as well as guide the construction of frameworks that provide this necessary differentiation. There is a general consensus in education that “Learning theorists and researchers have not arrived at a universally accepted, precise definition of learning” (Parkay, et al., 189). This is a potentially disturbing admission for those that consider themselves educators.  What must be understood by curriculum planners, before anything else, is that the curriculum will be implemented upon students of vastly different backgrounds, shema, and learning styles. “A program should strive for the optimal match between learner capacity and level of experiences provided. Some children have greater facility with abstract thought, critical reasoning and meta–cognitive skills than others (Braggett et al., 1999). This means that to avoid underachievement a curriculum needs to be developed that will both challenge and stimulate students appropriately” (Differentiating the Curriculum). To not take this into account, is to guarantee the weakening of any curriculum that is produced.

The supervisors in charge of the curriculum design process must be sure not to simplify or overly downplay the significance of each curricular decision, as it is there job to ensure proper implementation of the curriculum after it has been accepted.  Failure to act in the developmental design stages of the curriculum will almost certainly result in a flawed and therefore ineffective document. The Common Core Standards are able to fill an important gap in the implementation and design of the curriculum.  As most school districts use a “Backwards Design” model of curricular planning, the standards become the jumping off point.  The more clear and precise these standards are, the more likely the prescribed curriculum becomes the enacted curriculum. Too often, this process is short-changed. “Jumping from the standards to create lesson plans misses a crucial middle step of developing a coherent curriculum. The absence of this more complex work of creating a local curricular framework for the district, which informs the sequence and breadth of instruction (usually referred to as “scope and sequence”), will result in weak implementation of Common Core” (Honig).  Using the CCSS correctly, and determining them as the basis for subsequent discussion of scope and sequence at each grade level subject simplifies the process of planning, and makes the implementation more clear for those tasked with using it on a daily basis.

In order to determine the success of the curriculum, supervisors need to be vigilant in collecting data that concerns the efficacy of the program.  Is it being properly implemented?  Are their benchmark assessments? Are PLC’s functioning in making the curriculum stronger? Do teachers understand that the curriculum is a document that by all means evolves over the course of its existence? The state of New Jersey released a Powerpoint to principals and supervisors during a recent professional development. In addition to the many pages of common sense approaches to CCSS and curriculum evaluation, they recommended a prioritized list of goals for every school district in terms of curricular evaluation:

“On the three highest priorities:

1. Ensure that a coherent curriculum with standards selected by a team of teachers is actually taught and tested with common assessments.”

Clearly, the State takes great interest in the supervision of instruction as it relates to curricular alignment, as well as the use of Common Assessments to achieve this end.  Teachers will do themselves a great service by routinely discussing in their Professional Learning Communities the type of instruction they are using, and the data that backs its efficacy.  So to must administrators be present in these meetings as a way to guarantee that this work is being done, and has become an accepted practice in their building.

While the Common Core provides us with a useful and unifying framework at the start of the curriculum planning process, it must not be seen as the curriculum itself.  That work must be undertaken by group of educators, administrators, and community members tasked with its success.  Only by starting off with and understanding of student learning styles, developing and implementing the curriculum through shared outcomes and common assessments, and ensuring the implementation is occurring through proper supervision, will the curriculum designed by these stakeholders do what it has been tasked with, namely, increasing the education of the students it serves.

References

"Differentiating the Curriculum." Differentiating the curriculum. NSW Department of Education and Communities, n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/programs/differentiate/>

"Shifting Gears! Using the CCSS, PARCC and Educator Evaluation to Drive Student Achievement." . State of New Jersey, n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.state.nj.us/education/sca/ppt/gears/MSUPricipal.pdf>.

"Understanding History | The Principle of Simplicity." Understanding History | The Principle of Simplicity. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/simplicity.html>.

Honig, Bill. "Coherent and sequenced curriculum key to implementing Common Core standards." EdSource Today. EdSource, 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://edsource.org/2014/coherent-and-sequenced-curriculum-key-to-implementing-common-core-standards/56704#.U5kFXZSwIjA>.

Parkay, Forrest W.. Curriculum Leadership: Readings for Developing Quality Educational Programs. 9th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2010. Print.

From All Sides: The Disastrous Effects of Short-Term Thinking in Educational Policy

“As soldiers arrive on the battlefields of Afghanistan, they face enormous expectations to show "progress." It is an impossible situation: the military's counterinsurgency strategy requires, by all accounts, years to implement and even longer to succeed. Yet officers are pressured, both by political considerations in Washington and command expectations in Kabul, to accomplish big objectives on very short time frames. Because it's rare for a tour of duty to last more than 12 months, commanders are severely constrained in what choices they can make. It's difficult to be slow and deliberate when one must show progress, right now, in time for a Congressional hearing or a strategic review. Those pressures constraint incentives and shape day-to-day decision-making. Officers, perhaps understandably, look for ways to demonstrate short-term gain, sometimes at the cost of long-term success. Today, Tarok Kolache is "cleared." Three years from now, when the Obama administration says it will begin reducing troop numbers, how stable, safe, and anti-Taliban will its remaining villagers really be?” (How Short-Term Thinking is Causing Long-Term Failure in Afghanistan, by Joshua Foust, The Atlantic)

Putting professionals into situation where the emphasis on showing short-term progress in lieu of the overall long-term goals of a particular situation can have devastating and long-lasting effects on an organization.  No where is this more true in education than it is in the State of New Jersey, where a recent confluence of political, economic, and social variables threatens to undermine the profession of teaching, and the role that public education plays in our state.  The long term effects of these policies and shifts in social values will make it much harder to attract competent professionals to the public schools in our communities, and the effect on students will only serve to exacerbate this looming catastrophe.  The game is being played right now in a way that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, unless the root causes for these changes can be recognized, the myths dispelled, and a more ethical and intelligent course of action can be reached by all involved parties.

At first glance, the primary culprit in the changing view of educational professionals can be laid at the feet of our state political system.  The attacks on unions, lead primarily by the governor, have fundamentally weakened the public perceptions and the bargaining ability of the unions, both of which are essential to continue their relevance and existence.  There are numerous, dubious reasons for these attacks. “In the past five years, we have witnessed a demonization of teachers unions that is close to achieving its goal: destruction of the most stable and potentially powerful defender of mass public education. Teacher union’s continued existence is imperiled — if what we define as "existence" is organizations having the legal capacity to bargain over any meaningful economic benefits and defend teachers’ rights to exercise professional judgment about what to teach and how to do it” (Werner). The successful destruction of the union would have many negative effects on the quality of our teaching workforce.  There would be unprecedented numbers of people leaving the profession, and those that would choose to become teachers given the negative way that they would be treated would call into serious question the standards to which these potential candidates hold themselves.  Losing good teachers to the demonization of our profession would therefore have a direct impact on the quality of education provided to our students.  As with most states that have a history of strong Teacher’s Unions, New Jersey is consistently ranked highly when compare to the other states, with a strong union having an almost direct correlation to highly achieving student populations.  The continued deconstruction of the unions is a short-term idea, that would have devastating long-term consequences.

Everyone likes the idea of lowering taxes.  This is uniquely true in New Jersey, where we have the highest percentage of property taxes in the United States.  It was easy to run on this, as Chris Christie discovered (although he has demonstrated much more difficulty in devising ways to actually lower them), and he eventually passed a 2% cap on local governments that wanted to avoid referendums that went to a vote.  Naturally, as local school budgets are tied directly to the property taxes, this in effect created a 2% increase on schools themselves, “thus scoring a political triumph that could give voters greater control over how their towns and school districts raise and spend money. With his signature, Christie lowered the existing ceiling on annual increases from 4 to 2 percent, and closed most loopholes in the existing law. When towns and schools starved of revenue want to raise taxes higher, they will have to get permission from a majority of local voters — something foes warn will widen the chasm between rich and poor communities” (Heininger). Another byproduct of this law, has occurred in the hiring process at local schools. I came to realize this in full after last year’s interviews, where the Director of Human Resources instructed all building principals in our district to not interview any potential candidates with more than 1 year of teaching on their resume.  This edict, and various others across our state, make it difficult to hire qualified staff, while at the same time making it almost impossible for established teachers to switch districts if they are unhappy.  Clearly, this affects students when they will be increasing placed in front of teachers that are either brand new, and learning on the job, or teachers that are stuck in buildings they may no longer wish to be in.  Over the long-term, the effect of this seemingly innocuous short-term decision represents a perilous path for New Jersey.

Recent years have seen the number of students applying to, and being accepted by, colleges rise at an exponential rate.  As this national trend has continued, it has had obvious effects on the types of programs being implemented in public schools to prepare students for this eventuality.  Schools pride themselves on the number of students that they place into colleges, and the state and federal government adopted new ways of assessing schools by this criteria.  Somewhere lost in this seemingly common sense approach however, is a basic truth, “what's still getting lost, some argue, is that too many students are going to college not because they want to, but because they think they have to” (Marklein). Clearly, all students should have the opportunity to go to college, but what is less easy to say, is whether or not all should.  The social pressure that districts are under to show that their schools send students to colleges at high rates poses some questions about the degree to which they are assessing and attending to the needs of a diverse population of individuals.  No where is this more apparent than the loss of Vocational education programs with normal public high schools.  Where once these classes were filled by students confidently preparing themselves for the workforce, we know see scores of students that have simply been removed from the mainstream due to lack of engagement or skill.  The social stigma that is now carried by those that aren’t “college material” often means that these students, many of whom have been made to feel less than for much of their academic careers, see where they have been placed not as an opportunity, but as confirmation that they are broken or deficient.  When too many of our curricular decisions are made in this regard, we do our students a great disservice, all in the name of “helping” them.

The past few years in education have shown a great deal of upheaval, and a slew of initiatives and changes designed to better the future and opportunities for our students in a new and growing global marketplace. It is our job as leaders within these communities to make sure that the decisions we are making make just as much sense 20 and 30 years down the line as they do in the immediate years to come.  The political, economic, and social pressures that are being exerted on our profession are strong, but we as educators have a duty, to inform those around us, in both our teaching and social lives, that these types of knee-jerk reactions will do far more harm than good. Hopefully, we are successful in this endeavor, our students’ future may depend upon it.

References

Foust, Joshua. "How Short-Term Thinking Is Causing Long-Term Failure in Afghanistan." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.

Heininger, Claire. "N.J. Gov. Christie Signs 2 Percent Property Tax Cap Bill."The Star-Ledger. Nj.com, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.

Marklein, Mary B. "What If a College Education Just Isn't for Everyone?" USA Today, 16 Mar. 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

Werner, Lois. "Teacher Unionism Reborn." New Politics. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.

Bringing Weapons to School

In so many of the movies that I’ve watched over the past 25 years, a common trope is apparent.  Anytime there is some new technology or innovation introduced into our society, it is almost always co-opted by some form of bureaucracy, and in most cases, weaponized.

The movie that really drove this point home for me as a child was “Short Circuit,” a quintessential 80’s flick starring Steve Guttenberg, Ally Sheedy, and of course, the sarcastic robot, Johnny Number 5.  As anyone my age will tell you, the idea of having a robot like Johnny 5 around would have been, in the parlance of our time, radical.  This was an amazing technology, an artificial intelligence capable of independent thought, with a thirst for knowledge, and a desire for fun as well as social justice.
The main crux of the film was that Johnny and his creators were trying to save him from being turned into a mindless killing machine.  Of course they succeed, and evil is punished accordingly.
A more recent and, in retrospect, way cooler, example of this is the plotline in the latest installment of the Batman franchise, “The Dark Knight Returns”.  At one point in the film we learn that Bruce Wayne and the R&D wing of his company have constructed an experimental energy reactor capable of delivering free power to all of Gotham (read, NYC).  The only catch is that he refuses to turn it on, because he is afraid that the introduction of the technology will call for, wait for it, a desire from others to turn it into a weapon.
Eventually, it IS turned on, subsequently weaponized, and used as a bludgeon to bring the city to its knees.  Batman’s only solution is to drag it out to sea, where it can explode without hurting anyone.
Over the past few weeks, the hazy details of the State of New Jersey’s plan to enforce the development of Student Growth Objectives (SGO’s), also known by their alter-ego, Student Learning Objectives, have begun to emerge.  As the Instructional Leader in my building, I’ve been tasked with helping the staff through this process.
We are currently developing the Objectives themselves, essentially the skills that educators will target in their classrooms as a way of gauging the progress of their students.
On it’s face, a Student Growth Objective is a great idea.  The concept is that teachers will create assessments that will check a student’s level of understanding of specific concepts multiple times over the course of the year.  The teachers will look at the data that has been collected on each child, and use that information to guide the instruction for EACH INDIVIDUAL CHILD BASED ON THEIR SPECIFIC LEVEL OF NEED.
If you are at all familiar with the blog, you know what a high value I place on Individualized Instruction, and this appears to be a great tool that we can use to start actually altering the types of instruction that are considered acceptable in a 21st Century Classroom.  The more I have gone through the process with the staff in my building, from Math teachers to the In School Suspension teacher, the more I have come to realize how innovative and valuable this exercise has the capacity to become.
But here’s the problem, and isn’t this always the problem?  They want to turn it into a weapon.
The SGO process is tied directly to the state legislation known collectively as EE4NJ (Excellent Educators for NJ), an acronym that begs two initial questions:

1.  By what measure are the educators in NJ, a state that consistently over the last 40 years has been ranked among the top 5 performers in the country, not excellent?

and,

2. How can we strive for excellence when the bill itself substitutes the word ‘for’ with the letter ‘4’ in its own name; did they write it through text message?

All joking aside, the bill calls for the SGO’s to make up 50% of a teacher’s evaluation each year.  While this may not seem problematic, there are many troubling reasons this should not be tied to keeping your job.

The first is that teachers, in order to guarantee that they can keep doing what they love, will be reluctant to make the SGO’s as rigorous as they should, or can, be.  By holding the bar as high as possible, you are potentially shooting yourself in the foot.  

In addition, the student populations in individual schools will now be consistently called into question within that school.  Since the ability to show growth in your students is the measure of success, a teacher with a different classroom make-up compared to his or her colleagues may be at an advantage or disadvantage.  Students with strong work ethics and supportive families will be a hot commodity for teachers.  In some schools, however, the strongest teachers are sometimes syphoned students that struggle in various ways, because of their previous track successes with such students. Unfortunately, a class full of struggling students competing against a more heterogeneous grouping may hurt these high quality teachers.

Finally, those that teach Math or Language Arts are considered teachers of a “Tested Area”.  In addition to their SGO’s, these teachers will have up to 35% of their retention evaluations linked to Standardized Test scores alone.  Aside from keeping potential Math and Language Arts graduates away from those subjects, and the lack of job security linked with pay that they offer, current teachers in those subjects have a distinctly different level of anxiety when compared to their colleagues in the “Non-tested Area’s”.

The culmination of the building-wide anxiety that was created by this law, and its intended effect of essentially ending tenure, brought the tension in our building to the forefront the past three weeks.

And it didn’t have to be this way.  They took a great, innovative idea, and used it to create a cudgel, a weapon.

This is nothing new, the influx of high-stakes testing as an evaluative tool is in and of itself a very similar story.  What we need to ask ourselves as we move forward, not just as educators, but as a society, is what do we truly value in the education of our children.  Do we hope to make them into critically thinking innovators, or simply an army of test-taking, institutionally bullied imitators.

The state has it half right, looking at students as individuals is key to unlocking their potential as students and learners.  The problem is taking that good idea, and using it to intimidate and threaten the very people responsible for creating the type of students we all want to see in our society.

I think back to the way this is handled in the films that I’ve seen.  The only way to stop the potentially damaging weaponization of quality innovations is simple, you have to fight back, and you have to let everyone see you doing it.  If we do it that way, we can retain the value of the innovation, and shame those who would use it inappropriately into the background.  That, or we’re going to need a talking robot or Batman to save everyone.

I think I’m more comfortable relying on us.

Writer's Workshop Conferencing Tips

My class workshop/studio focuses on 3 major "Process" papers, with additional supplementary papers that emphasize full student choice.  The following are tips for conferencing with students during the supplementary paper process, but they have direct applications for conferencing in general with students as well.

The supplemental papers can cover a very wide range of genre, lengths, and subjects.  Frequent conferencing, particularly on the front-end of the paper, is key to student success.  The following is a brief overview of the path students might take through the supplemental paper process.

I.               Topic/Genre Generation

a.     The main issue at the beginning of the process is helping students to face the “white page.”  This can often be a daunting task, especially for students who may not consider themselves writers.  The most important question to ask the students during conferences at this point, is whether their topic or genre interests them.  Failure to attach themselves to a topic of importance will doom the product to failure, as it will neither engage the students, nor make their writing exciting and valid.

b.     “But it’s Hard!”: Allow students to flounder here.  There is no rush to find a topic, and it may take students time to make a decision.  This is the best time to give students a chance to explore their desires, wants, and interests.  Do not confuse a student struggling at this point with a student “not doing,” give them the time they need to find something worth saying.

II.             Outline/Planning

a.     This step will be different according to genre and topic (as well as the student’s level).  Remember to gauge the steps in a way that is authentic and meaningful, not simply arbitrary.

b.     Start Small, Go Big:  Remember that planning is the act of creating a paper’s skeleton.  We will add the muscle and skin later, but now we need a strong foundation.  The outline and planning provides this.  Allow students to create plans that help them to look at the document as a whole, and help them to see all of the moving parts, before we ask them to compose.

c.     No One Way:  Use your knowledge of the individual students to determine what steps you’d like them to consider in their plan.  Make sure that they also have authorship in these plans, and that they understand each step, and why they are doing them. Without the buy-in, the paper will end up being for you, and not for them.

III.           Text Generation

a.     The Simplest Step:  Get out of their way and let them write.  Let them write for extended periods of time, and stress the need for getting everything down, not simply the bare minimum.

b.     The More the Better:  Writing is sculpture, we start with a large chunk of rock, and we will eventually cut away from it and shape it to our desires.  Text generation is building the rock.  There must be enough to cut away from when we’re done, so urge students to write as much as possible.

c.     No Arbitrary Rules:  Don’t tell the students that paragraph must be a certain length.  It isn’t true.  Don’t tell them that a persuasive essay is five paragraphs.  It isn’t true.  Don’t tell them that you must provide a counter-point in every argument.  It isn’t true.  Avoid any type of arbitrary rule that is not indicative of authentic writing, and certainly don’t tell them that there are writing rules, which are in fact designed by you to guarantee certain types of outcomes.

IV.           Drafting/Editing

a.     Once the student has generated the requisite amount of text, they should begin a typed draft.  Students should be cognizant of self-editing during this process, but understand that this is not relegated to getting rid of the red and green “squigglies.” Before they begin a formal, “hard edit” they should print the document, which will force them to look at the paper in a different way.

b.     Don’t Overwhelm:  When editing a printed piece, resist the urge to correct every mistake.  Odds are that this will result in a paper filled with red marks.  Rather, read the piece looking for a pattern of errors.  Once you recognize the pattern, stop reading the document, bring the pattern to the student’s attention, and teach a mini-lesson if necessary.  Ask the student to go forward through the remainder of the document and find other examples of this mistake, and have them corrected when they bring it back to you.  If the student is recognizing the mistake, great!  If not, re-teach accordingly.  Try not to mark for more than three areas of improvement per draft, as this will allow the student to manage the drafting and editing process.

V.             Publishing/Performance

a.     Make sure students know that they are not simply writing for their teacher.  By requiring the students to either publish or perform their work, it forces them to take pride in their endeavors, and to write for themselves. The added pressure of “getting it right” falls on them, and placing the writing in the public arena is a powerful motivator.

Things to Remember:  these  papers are about creating buy-in, and opening up students to a writing life, where self-expression is sought and encouraged.  As teachers, we can provide individualized instruction that is student-directed, and still cover the curriculum requirements we are responsible for.  For formal, class-wide pieces, we can still have process-driven papers, but supplementary papers can allow additional opportunities for individual growth.

Talking about Poetry with Middle School Students

  As my classroom begins to roll over into full workshop for the rest of the year, I know that many of my students will be attempting poetry, many for the first time.  It's important as teachers that we have authentic discussions with students surrounding our expectations.  Middle school students generally come into poetry with similar misconceptions or issues.  Here is a list of the most common:

-       -Poetry has “No Rules”

-       -Poetry must rhyme

-       -Poetry must be short

-       -Poems must be on a serious topic

-       -Poetry should be difficult to understand or vague

-       -Poetry only needs to make sense to the writer

None of these things are true, and helping writers through these assumptions is key to getting them to write poetry well.  There are a few general ways you can attack these conceptions, and create a more meaningful and authentic experience for children.

1.     Poetry is not Anarchy:  As with any other piece of prose, poetry must be created with intent behind it.  This intent can be shown through many different ways, but unless the student is writing poetry that purposefully assaults the conventions of Standard English, poetry should be grammatically and conventionally sound.  This is the most common mistake kids make when starting middle school poetics.  To address this, have he students redraft their work in paragraph form, or ask them to compose in this manner.   This will allow them to make sure that the poem follows standard conventions without confusing them in terms of line breaks.

2.     Poetry is written for Performance:  Poetry has historically been a spoken art form.  As such, the use of commas and periods in the poem must be used with intent, directing the reader as to how the poem should sound when read aloud.  This is also an opportunity to teach mini-lessons around the use of Alliteration, Assonance, Metrics, and Rhyme (although these are higher level concepts).

3.     Poetry is not from Concentrate:  A poem is as long as it “needs” to be.  In some cases, this is predetermined, as in Sonnets or Villanelles.  Other poems have their length determined by subject alone.  In either situation, the economy and functionality of words is paramount.  There should not be any words or phrases that amount to excess baggage, and students should be able to justify why things are included on the page.

4.     Poetry is not all Dirges:  Neruda wrote about fruit and salt, Whitman and Ginsberg wrote about their bodies, and Bukowski wrote about his own depravity.  There are no “set” topics for poetry, the desire to write alone is the key, the need to capture, to “Name the World.”  If the student wants to create a Haiku, make sure they research the form, understand the subtleties it provides, and not focus on the fact that it is only 3 lines. Choosing a topic is important, but not limited to what we would typically define as “momentous” or life altering events.  A good poem adds grace to the mundane, meaning to normalcy.

  This post is as yet unfinished, what would you add to it?  What issues do you see when students attempt poetry?